Monday, November 08, 2004

Are plans in place if schools attacked?



Click here for AmazonIt's about 8:42 in the morning, and you have just sat down at your desk with a cup of hot coffee. As the sheriff of this small rural community, you are reviewing the overnight reports from your graveyard shift deputies. It was, as usual, a relatively uneventful night.

Unbeknownst to you as you read your reports, only about five minutes before, a nondescript car with tinted windows along with two minivans just rolled into the parking lot of your local county elementary school. They stop near the school's main office, parking along the curb.

The doors suddenly fly open and out rush teams of hooded, armed men. They are carrying military load-bearing equipment, handguns, canteens, small backpacks and have rifles, M-16s and AK-47s. They rush to the doors, and immediately two of the men move directly to the front office. The men charge inward, a team of three others follows behind, and two more are hand-carrying a large kit bag between them. The hooded intruders begin to fan out through the school, several rushing down the halls toward the side door exits.

The secretary at the front desk jumps up with her mouth open, ready to scream, but she is slammed to the floor as the two men with weapons pointing shout for all to move away from their desks. One of the men grasps the microphone for school announcements. The other man rounds up those in the office - the vice principal, a student - and orders them to sit down on their hands; another hooded man comes in and begins to quick cuff them. The team with the kit bag moves to the auditorium shouting for the workers to move from the kitchen inside the room. A teacher in the hallway upon seeing armed men running toward her begins to scream, some doors open as teachers peer out. Systematically, armed men enter classrooms screaming orders while blasting air horns for the children to move to the lunchroom. It's chaos at one end of school. Rapidly, students and teachers are herded to the auditorium that doubles as the lunchroom...


Are plans in place if schools attacked?

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Condescending isn't a strategy



Click here for AmazonI had a bet with myself this week: How soon after election night would it be before the Bush-the-chimp-faced-moron stuff started up again? 48 hours? A week? I was wrong. Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level. On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced that Bush was an idiot. By the evening of Nov. 2, they were convinced that the electorate was. Or as London's Daily Mirror put it in its front page: "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?"

Well, they're British lefties: They can do without Americans. Whether an American political party can do without Americans is more doubtful. Nonetheless, MSNBC.com's Eric Alterman was mirroring the Mirror's sentiments: "Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the 'reality-based community' say or believe about anything." Over at Slate, Jane Smiley's analysis was headlined, "The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.'' If you don't want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: "F--- MIDDLE AMERICA."

Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that "MIDDLE AMERICA" has "F---ed" you, and it will continue to do so every two years as long as Democrats insist that anyone who disagrees with them is, ipso facto, a simpleton -- or "Neanderthal," as Teresa Heinz Kerry described those unimpressed by her husband's foreign policy. In my time, I've known dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and other members of Britain's House of Lords and none of them had the contempt for the masses one routinely hears from America's coastal elites. And, in fairness to those ermined aristocrats, they could afford Dem-style contempt: A seat in the House of Lords is for life; a Senate seat in South Dakota isn't.

More to the point, nobody who campaigns with Ben Affleck at his side has the right to call anybody an idiot. H. L. Mencken said that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Well, George Soros, Barbra Streisand and a lot of their friends just did: The Kerry campaign and its supporters -- MoveOn.org, Rock The Vote, etc. -- were awash in bazillions of dollars, and what have they got to show for it? In this election, the plebs were more mature than the elites: They understood that war is never cost-free and that you don't run away because of a couple of setbacks; they did not accept that one jailhouse scandal should determine America's national security interest; they rejected the childish caricature of their president and paranoid ravings about Halliburton; they declined to have their vote rocked by Bruce Springsteen or any other pop culture poser.

All the above is unworthy of a serious political party. As for this exit-poll data that everyone's all excited about, what does it mean when 22 percent of the electorate say their main concern was "moral issues"? Gay marriage? Abortion? Or is it something broader? For many of us, the war is also a moral issue, and the Democrats are on the wrong side of it, standing not with the women voting proudly in Afghanistan's first election but with the amoral and corrupt U.N., the amoral and cynical Jacques Chirac, the amoral and revolting head-hackers whom Democratic Convention guest of honor Michael Moore described as Iraq's ''minutemen.'' ...


Read the whole thing: Chicago Sun-Times - Condescending Dems still don't get it

The Mandate has a Motto




"I can't believe I'm losing to this Idiot"



Click here for AmazonJohn Kerry constantly squabbled with his difficult and hypochondriac wife, ran a campaign team riven by internal feuding, and repeatedly begged the Republican senator John McCain to become his running-mate, according to a riveting inside account of his doomed presidential bid.

The Massachusetts senator was so obsessed with getting advice from a multitude of rival advisers that one aide confiscated his mobile telephone. His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, became such a moody distraction that in the closing weeks of the campaign another aide instructed her to stop whispering advice in his ear and back off.

At the same time, according to Newsweek, the relentlessly disciplined Bush White House, which only once descended into near panic after the President’s disastrous first debate performance, became so aghast and delighted at Mr Kerry’s ability to shoot himself in the foot that they almost felt sorry for him.

One of the untold stories of the presidential campaign was the erratic behaviour of the candidate’s wife, the Heinz heiress Mr Kerry married in 1995, according to Newsweek. She drove her Secret Service detail mad with her chronic lateness, constantly demanded attention, including her husband’s (who seemed to tread on eggshells when around her). She even sent him off on errands, such as fetching bottles of water. She clashed with Mary Beth Cahill, Mr Kerry ’s campaign manager, and Mr Kerry was caught in the middle...


"I can't believe I'm losing to this Idiot"

No sh*t



Click here for AmazonHollywood is licking its wounds after an election that saw voters not only reject the candidate it anointed -- Democrat John Kerry -- but repudiate the values that the liberal stronghold cherishes.

Now, amid the second-guessing and recriminations that inevitably haunt the losing side, some are beginning to ask: Has Hollywood become a liability to the Democrats?

Political analysts said that polarizing figures such as Michael Moore -- whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary bitterly attacked President Bush -- alienated Middle America as much as they galvanized the faithful.

"There's no question that some Republican voters feel pistol-whipped by famous people getting involved in presidential elections," said Jonathan Wilcox, who teaches a course on celebrity and society at the University of Southern California.

He said Hollywood rhetoric, such as comments attributed to the singer Cher suggesting Republican right wingers would force gays to live in a single state, showed "a degree of dialogue that goes beyond political license."...


Post-Election, Hollywood Seen as Liability to Left

Electoral County Map, Redux



We've probably all seen the electoral county map that shows the blue and red counties... but my guess is you probably haven't seen the population-adjusted version.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Exit Polls



Click here for AmazonThe already discredited exit polls are now being used as fodder for mainstream media to try and determine why us ignorant boobs in Middle America voted for Bush. The answer they come up with: we're all evangelical bigots and are therefore against gays and gay marriage. Well, they may console themselves in any manner they choose, and if they want to bury their arrogant, elitist heads in the sand for another four years and inevitably face another drubbing in 2008, more power to them. For such nuanced people, they sure to like to boil things down to facile, simplistic fundamentals.

To illustrate the complexity they ignore, I thought it would be interesting to chronicle my journey to a 2004 Bush vote. I started out thinking that this might be the year I vote for a Democrat. Other than Bush's foreign policy, I didn't agree with many of his policies. Domestically, I find compassionate conservatism to be frightfully expensive. I think we need tighter immigration laws, not blanket amnesty. In balance, though, I liked (and deserved) my tax cuts, and I don't want to pay $16 for an orange. I have always admired Bush's tenacity, though. His detractors call it stubbornness, but I see it as leadership. I've believed for quite awhile that the job of President of the United States is not a position that should be filled with a politician; rather, it is a position requiring the steadfastness of a true leader. I see that in Bush, and I respect it, even when I don't agree with his decisions...

...So, I was luke warm to a second Bush term, and looked forward to investigating an alternative. I followed the democratic primaries very closely and thought that out of the nine, there was one that I might be interested in voting for. Too bad for Joe that he was deemed by the elites in his party as being too Jewish and too ugly. He may still have been carrying the indelible taint from his prior run with Psycho Al by his side. Either way, long story short we ended up with John Kerry. Prior to Kerry's nomination, I tended towards anti-Bush. After the nomination, I strongly turned Anybody But Kerry. When it came down to making my decision, my vote was somewhat for Bush, but primarily against Kerry and his party.

Specifically, I voted against:

- I voted against a man that clearly used his Vietnam experience as resume padding. After failing to get his requested deferments, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve, fully expecting stateside duty. When that didn't work out for him, he went overseas and bought a 8mm movie camera to chronicle his exploits. Once enough film was in the can, he gamed the system and got his three purple hearts. Had he been an enlisted man, I think I could have lived with that. As an officer, expected to lead and set a positive example for his men, I cannot. His actions in Vietnam showed early on that this man does not understand or care about the responsibilities of being a leader.

- I voted against the man that came back from Vietnam and slandered his fellow soldiers, ostensibly in protest of our involvement in the war, but more likely in order to make a name for himself to launch his political career. I voted against the treasonous action of illegally meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives on two, if not three, occasions. The fact that he was still in our military at the time exacerbates my feelings of disgust at his actions. There are right ways to protest the actions of our government, and there are treasonous ways to protest. This man chose the path of dishonor.

- I voted against the man that can't seem to tell the truth about even innocuous things like having run in the Boston marathon (he did not). I voted against the man that testified before the Senate that he was in Cambodia in December, 1968. He was not. As examples of this casual, and possibly pathological, lying became even more common I decided that there was no way in the world he could be trusted on any topic. It became even more obvious who had the most credibility between Kerry and the 254 Swift Boat Vets that had come forward to share their direct experiences with Lt. Kerry, war hero.

- I voted against a man that wasted 20 years of opportunity to lead his country as one of only one hundred Senators. I voted against a man that tried to play both sides of every issue. I voted against a man that couldn't even stand up and take the responsibility for his senate votes. I voted against the man that voted against our military procurements as a habit. I voted against the man that voted to gut the intelligence budget, but had the gall to complain about faulty intelligence leading to the 9/11 attacks. I voted against the man who voted to cede Kuwait to Sadaam Hussein. I voted against the man that originally reversed his earlier decision and agreed that Hussein needed to be removed, only to recant when he thought it would gain him his party’s nomination for doing so. I voted against a man that is incapable of demonstrating the strength of his convictions because he simply hasn’t any convictions.

- I voted against a man that would say anything, anything at all, no matter who it hurt to become President, simply to stoke his enormous ego. I voted against a man that accused the incumbent of having "secret plans" to bring back the draft, in order to frighten younger voters and their parents into voting for him. Cutting Social Security, dairy subsidies, whatever - Bush had a "secret plan." These accusations from a man who had a "plan" for everything, with the exception of having a plan to deal with the Swift Boat vets, who clearly stated their plans well in advance. This from a man who could not or would not provide ANY details about his plans.

- I voted against the “whatever Bush has done, I would have done better” load of drivel. 20-20 hindsight is not a quality I look for in a presidential candidate; I prefer one that can look ahead and see opportunities. I look for one that can decisively address unanticipated challenges without having to check the polls first.

- I voted against a man that has vacillated on the most important issue of our time, the war on terror. I voted against the man that has repeatedly denigrated our military leadership in a time of war to score political points with his far-left base. I voted against a man that believes the duplicitous and cowardly French and Germans are more desirable allies than the steadfast British, Australians, and others. I voted against the man that believes killing 3000+ civilians in cold blood, in an attempt to destroy our national will, is a “law enforcement” issue, not an act of war.

- I voted against a man that believes “rich” people like me should pay even more taxes, above the 34% I pay now, while he and his billionaire wife pay less than 14%. I voted against a man that doesn’t understand that corporations are good, not evil. I make my living working for a corporation and do not want to see it damaged by populist rhetoric and class warfare. I voted against a man that believes every person that survives the democratic abortion on demand policy should be supported at a standard of living that surpasses the middle class of every other country in the world by redistribution of my hard-earned income.

If voting against Kerry wasn't enough, I also voted against:

- I voted against a blatantly biased media that applied a double standard in their reporting that surpassed belief. I voted against a media that believed they could get more credible witnesses to Kerry's Vietnam experience by traveling to Vietnam than they could get from 254 Americans, including retired Admirals and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. I voted against a media that attempted to smear a sitting president using patently bogus documents, and to this day refuses to apologize or hold the responsible parties accountable. I voted against a media that used the despicable actions of a very small group of Abu Graib prison guards to tarnish our entire military and country in pursuit of their cause to get their anointed candidate elected. I voted against a media that apparently believes it was more honorable to run and hide in Canada (or Oxford) to avoid Vietnam service than it was to dedicate six years of your life flying a dangerously obsolete fighter jet in the National Guard.

- I voted against Massachusetts activist judges that feel that they should be able to decide social issues for our entire country. I don't personally think gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage; I think Hollywood and Washington DC heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that themselves. I really don't have a dog in this hunt so to speak. But I believe that this is an issue for each state to decide. Regarding a national constitutional amendment, I tend to favor amendments that grant rights to minorities over amendments that restrict rights.

- I voted against a party that embraces blowhards like Michael Moore, even to the extent of giving him a seat in the presidential box at their national convention. I voted against barely literate "celebrities" that feel that their opinions are somehow weightier than mine, and the media that enables them. I voted against the party of Terry McAuliffe. I voted against the party of George Soros. I voted against the party that will not denounce groups that cannot and will not tell the difference between the President of the United States and Adolph Hitler. I voted against the party that embraces the first amendment as long as it is not used to ensure the freedom to speak against or criticize them.

Too bad these questions were addressed on the exit polls. The media and democratic party might, just might, have gotten a clue.


Exit Polls

Friday, November 05, 2004

Mandate



Click here for Amazon!It really was a mandate. Although the margin was tight in several critical states, Bush won by about 3,500,000 votes overall or around 3% of all votes cast. Now here's something to consider.

What if the mainstream media had leveled the playing field?

Just imagine the following:

  • Tonight on "60 Minutes": Ed Bradley interviews Thomas Lipscomb on John Kerry's mysterious discharge from the Navy. Why won't candidate Kerry release his service records?


  • Tonight on "Nightline": Ted Koppel interviews the Swiftboat Veterans and former FBI agents about John Kerry's past... his presence at VVAW meetings that discussed assassinating Senators... his "Christmas in Cambodia" trip with the CIA man and the magic hat... and his odd Purple Heart experiences that conflict with his own journal.


  • Tonight on "Wolf Blitzer Reports": John Kerry's Twenty Year Senate Record... what really happened and why didn't he mention it in his DNC acceptance speech?


  • Newsweek's Evan Thomas said early on, "the media wants Kerry to win ... There's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth ... maybe 15 points."

    Let's say he was exaggerating and the media's skewed "journalism" and "investigative reporting" were only worth, say, five points.

    If the mainstream media had leveled the playing field, the results might have been:

    George Bush: 64,500,000 votes; John Kerry: 50,000,000 votes.

    Now, that's a mandate.

    According to Michael Crane, author of The Political Junkie Handbook, President re-elect, George W. Bush, increased his standing among the following groups of people – by anywhere from one to seven percentage points – when compared to the respective levels of support he received from them, back in the year-2000 election:

    1) Women,
    2) Men,
    3) Blacks,
    4) Whites,
    5) Hispanics,
    6) Married people,
    7) Unmarried people,
    8) Catholics,
    9) Jews,
    10) 30-44 year-olds,
    11) 45-59 year-olds,
    12) 60 year-olds and up,
    13) Union members,
    14) Gun owners,
    15) Democrats, and
    16) Republicans.

    Hmm.


    PoliPundit: Divisive

    Thursday, November 04, 2004

    Advice to fellow Democrats



    Click here for Amazon!The Backseat Philosopher, courtesy InstaPundit:

    Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

    Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

    And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?


    Advice to fellow Democrats

    Zell tried to tell 'em



    Click here for Amazon!And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I’ve spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

    And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

    Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

    George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.


    Zell Tried to tell 'em

    The BBC: Why did you vote for Bush?



    ...I voted for Bush because his political policies are most like my own. I voted for Bush in rejection of the corruption of the elite media. I voted for Bush in rejection of the vast corruption in the UN. I voted for Bush in rejection of fashionable politics with no substance. I voted for Bush because there is a time for diplomacy and he understands when that is.
    Shante' Fosket, Chesapeake, VA...

    ...I voted for President Bush because I refuse to be associated with a candidate or party that openly welcomes Michael Moore. I was actually leaning toward Kerry until Fahrenheit 911 was released. That heinous, hate filled movie and the fact that many in the Democratic Party and the Hollywood elite actually promoted it as the truth turned me. As a 911 survivor, it insulted my intelligence and the memory of all my friends, neighbours, and colleagues who perished at the hands of criminals.
    Rob, Madison, NJ, USA...

    ...I voted for Bush because I would never vote to put a Democrat in the White House when we are at war, their track record in that department being reprehensible. I voted for Bush because for the first time in my lifetime, we have a President who does what he says he is going to do, and in the end, I voted for Bush because I trust him.
    Warren Jorgensen, New York, USA...

    ..I voted for President Bush because I see all the crisis level issues as originating from the leadership of the Democrat Party. President Johnson's opening of the SSI trust fund to borrow to fund his Camelot dream has ultimately threatened our economy by encouraging debt spending (no politician fails to spend what's available) and threatened the stability of the retirement system itself. Carter's decision to de-emphasize human intelligence and rely instead upon electronic intelligence has threatened our security.

    Clinton's decision to first take human rights out of China's MFN review process and then make the newly-renamed NTR status permanent for China lost high-paying manufacturing jobs to prison labour overseas. Every succeeding president has followed these policies, but the short-sighted polices themselves all have Democrat signatures putting them in place. We just can't afford another Democrat president and their feel-good record of implementing short-sighted, permanent national policy.
    Leo, Buffalo, USA


    BBC: Why did you vote for Bush?

    Not helping



    The moonbats apparently weren't too pleased with the results of the election. This series of photos captures the spirit of the hard left... a spirit that Middle America is sure to understand and embrace.

    Gloomy Mood




    Palestinian gunmen gloomily watch a television news report on the US presidential elections at the Ain el-Helweh refugee camp in southern Lebanon. Zayat)


    The Phone Call



    Click here for Amazon!Kerry Strategist and Commentator Paul Begala on CNN 11/3 (PM):

    BEGALA: Wha... Theh... Deh... Weh... They got beat! No, they were right to try to get new voters in as well, but they just got out, uh, out-hustled, out-organized, out-whatever, out-motivated by the Bush staff. I mean, Kerry's job was to motivate Democrats and to persuade independents. He did that. But the president just simply did a better job at his game, and I think that you got to give the president credit for that. He raised issues in the right way. He found those folks; he motivated them. He got them out to vote, and now's got, you know, now he has a real mandate. I spent four years saying that he "wasn't fully legitimate." He's fully legitimate now, and he's got a majority of the vote in a high-turnout election. There's nothing more legitimating than that.


    Kerry Strategist and Commentator Paul Begala on CNN 11/4 (AM):

    BEGALA: At election time he does good job of revving up these divisions, ehh, eee, uhh... attacking gay rights and suggesting maybe they're going to limit abortion rights. Let's put him to the test now. He's got the House. He's got the Senate. He's obviously got the White House. Let's see him speak out, eeeh, if he thinks abortion really is murder? Fine, let's put cops in hospitals, Mr. President. Let's ban abortion. You know, you think that gay rights is wrong? Fine, let's outlaw being gay the way Texas did for many years in years and start locking up the homosexuals. You know, the truth is he won't do any of that because this is all just a cynical ploy to manipulate good people with strong values and to use their votes and get them at the election. Then he's going to go back to his big-business agenda. You watch.


    Think Begala got a special phone call late on 11/3? I report. You decide.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2004

    Whew.



    Click here for AmazonI'd like to extend a sincere, heartfelt thanks to John Kerry for his gracious concession. That was a classy move and one I'm sure was disputed by some of his staff. Well done.

    The real losers in this election? Three that I can think of.

    1) The mainstream media. Despite their best efforts, the shameless, de facto mouthpieces of the left have just been slam-dunked into oblivion. The catastrophic circulation numbers of the LA Times and the SF Chronicle are simply the harbringers of the new reality: middle America doesn't believe what Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have to say. Middle America doesn't care about CBS or ABC or CNN. Middle America gets its real news from other outlets: talk radio, the blogosphere, Fox.

    Middle America didn't believe the Rathergate forgeries, the consecutive Bush hit pieces from 60 Minutes, the skewed exit polls, and all of the other egregious displays on non-journalism.

    Middle America ignored the mainstream media when it counted most. Could it be because no one in the MSM pressed John Kerry about his twenty years in the Senate or his failure to sign a Form 180? That no one had the guts to ask Kerry about his secret mission to Cambodia and the CIA man's magic hat? That no one had the fortitude to ask about his discharge from the Navy? That no one had the courage to ask Kerry about the Swiftboat Veterans' charges -- virtually all of which appear to be factual?

    See ya', mainstream media. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

    2) The Hollywood & Soros left. Anyone wondering what George Soros wanted for his $25 million (or whatever it was) investment? Anyone wondering what "star power" does for a campaign? Anyone wondering if the "heart and soul of America" really is Hollywood?

    Here's a simple equation for the Democratic party: the center = votes. You can't sell out the military during wartime and expect to win. The Hollywood left can now, officially, go pound sand. Or catch a first-class flight to Belgium with Johnny Dep and Alec Baldwin.

    As for George Soros: that squealing you just heard is all you need to know. Setting that much money on fire, with no visible return on investment, hurts anyone... even Soros. You may want to put some ice on your bum to relieve the burn, George.

    3) Jacque Chirac and Kofi Annan. Two words: s*ck it. Corrupt, lying weasels.

    ***

    Winners? How about Zell Millers and Ed Kochs of the world? These are loyal, yet disenfranchised Democrats who watched with concern and dismay as their party got hijacked. I foresee a pitched battle inside the Democratic party. No matter the outcome, the centrists will have a much bigger voice.

    ***

    Thanks to everyone that voted.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2004

    Is it safe?



    I'm hoping that by about 11PM tonight, that it will be safe to go back to writing about technology, software development, and information security issues again.

    Monday, November 01, 2004

    Bin Laden accepting surrenders on a state-by-state basis



    Click here for AmazonOsama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

    The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

    MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."


    Bin Laden's Warning to "Red" States

    Sunday, October 31, 2004

    FLASH: IRAN NUCLEAR MENACE



    Fox News reports tonight:

    'To shouts of "Death to America," Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.'

    Americans should consider well the choice that lies before them on Tuesday.

    A nuanced, global-test-taking, UN-approval-seeking Senator with a multi-decade record of making the wrong choices on matters of national security - or a principled leader with a track record of handling the unexpected with decisiveness.

    Think well, America. The future of your children and grandchildren rests in your hands on Tuesday.

    The Top Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004



    Click here for Amazon!From the Media Research Center comes this interesting list. It won't take a lot of mental gymnastics to guess who's #1. Read the whole thing.

    #10 Equating New Terrorism Warning to LBJ’s "Gulf of Tonkin"
    #9 Misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission on Iraq/al-Qaeda Links
    #8 CBS Promotes Fears of a New Military Draft
    #7 CBS’s Byron Pitts Promotional Kerry Coverage
    #6 Swooning Over Edwards’ Image, Ignoring His Liberalism
    #5 The Networks' Outrageous Convention Double-Standard
    #4 Spinning a Good Economy into Bad News
    #3 Pounding the Bush National Guard Story
    #2 Ignoring, then attacking, the Swiftboat Veterans
    #1 Dan Rather's Forgery Fiasco

    The Top Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004

    Saturday, October 30, 2004

    FLASH



    PoliPundit reports the following:

    The internals of the Washington Post/ABC News Poll - I have just learned the following about this poll:

    President Bush is only .2 from the 50% mark in the poll.

    Undecided voters favor the President 47%-36%.

    Among union voters, Kerry’s support is less than the Democratic candidate’s support in 2000. This bodes very well for the President in the Midwest and Pennsylvania.

    It's time for a long look in the mirror



    Click here for Amazon!...Does [the UBL tape really] sound any different from the arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11?

    I could be proven wrong, but I now have drastically revised my prediction of what's going to happen on election night. A Bush landslide is now exponentially more likely, as every voter walks into the voting booth with the topic of terrorism on his or her mind. It's far and away Bush's strongest issue.

    There are times when America wants the eloquent, nuanced multilateral, French-speaking, consensus-building, flexible and cautious negotiator. And then there are times when the country wants the plain-spoken butt-kicking aggressive unilateralist cowboy. Guess which time this is?

    ...There was an old saying about politics stopping at the water’s edge. There was a reason for this, and for the concept of the “loyal opposition.”... No party wants to be seen as putting foreign interests ahead of their own citizens’ interests, so they have to be on guard that their arguments aren’t providing fodder for foreign powers with different interests than America.

    Over the last three years or so, we have seen that concept obliterated. We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences... This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And — to my knowledge — not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, “Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He’s our president, leave the criticism of him to us.”

    ...this tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

    “How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?” ...


    National Review: IT'S TIME FOR A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR

    [UPDATE]: Compare and contrast - Kerry and Bin Laden Talking Points

    Congressman Tancredo's visit to Beslan



    Click here for Amazon!Did you know that Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recently visited Beslan to deliver messages of support from his constituents (Columbine High School included)? Probably not, as the story was completely ignored by the mainstream media. His blog is heart-rending and describes exactly what we can expect from Islamic Extremists in this country: attacks on the innocent, even schoolchildren, anywhere, anytime. Even in a rural community in the middle of nowhere. Like Beslan.

    ...Sunday Afternoon – Hospital Visit in Moscow

    Today was hard, tomorrow will be harder. Today we visited two hospitals in Moscow where many of the survivors were being treated after being triaged out of Beslan. Room after room is filled with children with their broken bodies and damaged minds. In every room there is a parent, aunt, brother or grandma keeping watch - waiting for the wounds to heal.

    In every room there is a story of heartbreak. In the first visit we meet a 16 year old boy who lies in very serious condition. This young man had the courage to grab the gun of a terrorist who had been shot and proceeded to kill another terrorist who was shooting at fleeing children. He then placed his body over a small girl for protection from the onslaught of bullets and shrapnel meant for her.

    In the next room, two sisters ages 8 and 10 lay in good spirits… It’s the 8 year olds birthday today, and my wife sings happy birthday to her in Russian. The little girl smiled, and lit up the room. Her aunt was sitting in the back of the room, and began to cry. I wish I could say the woman’s tears were for joy from the little girls smile. However they were tears because she knew of the pain yet awaiting both girls. They had lost both parents in the tragedy, but did not know it yet.

    It became more difficult as we made the move from room to room to hear the stories of these children’s bravery, and got to know these survivors and their families personally. We met the mother of a 12 year old girl who lies quietly as she unfolded a piece of gauze to show the ball bearing that the doctors took out of her daughters’ lung. Apparently the terrorists had packed the bombs with ball bearings to add to the shrapnel’s effect...


    Congressman Tom Tancredo: Visit to Beslan

    The 'Nuisance' is Back



    Click here for Amazon!It's always interesting when a New York Times op-ed not authored by Bill Safire pounds Kerry for his shifting opportunism. David Brooks groks what's really happening in the candidate's mind when it comes to the UBL tape.

    It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.

    Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.

    Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.

    On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president...

    ...Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.

    But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue.


    The Nuisance is Back

    UPDATE!: The Belmont Club believes that UBL is offering terms of surrender:

    ...It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

    The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

    Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.


    UBL's surrender proposal

    U.S. Team Took 250 Tons of Munitions from Al-Qaqaa



    Click here for Amazon!Once again, I'm shocked... SHOCKED... that the mainstream media hasn't effectively covered the latest information from the Pentago regarding the "missing" explosives.

    A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

    Maj. Austin Pearson said at a Pentagon news conference that he was tasked in the days after the fall of the Iraqi regime with a mission to secure and destroy ammunition and explosives. He led a 25-man team called Task Force Bullet...


    U.S. Team Took 250 Tons of Iraqi Munitions

    Quote of the Day



    "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the Swift Boats they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patroling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." John Kerry, Boston Globe, 1986

    Friday, October 29, 2004

    FLASH



    Click here for AmazonKerrySpot reports the following interesting news, reportedly from a senior-level campaign insider:

    FROM A SOURCE CLOSE TO THE CAMPAIGN [10/28 02:07 PM]

    Just heard from a source close to the campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels.

    According to the Bushies, the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers.

    They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump.

    The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.

    Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.

    An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.]

    Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here.

    Finally, the ammo dump story appears to have left the Kerry campaign deep in al-Qaqaa.

    Tommy Franks is going to enter this story and rip Kerry and the New York Times a new one. The Kerry folks are acting like they realized they have botched this story, and want to shift back to domestic topics. Lockhart, Bill Richardson on Imus — when asked about al-QaQaa, they dodge the question and quickly try to bring up other issues.

    The campaign is going to avoid the Russian angle and go with the straightforward, “As the facts mount in this story, American people have a choice between believing Kerry-NYTimes-CBS or believing Bush and the Troops.”

    This source close to the campaign didn’t say it, but I wonder if the Bush administration wants to deal with Russia in its own manner, and not have whatever diplomatic confrontations are going on behind the scenes complicated by a furious American electorate blaming Russia for hiding Iraq’s weapons and explosives.

    Thursday, October 28, 2004

    Kerry attacking the Military... again



    Click here for AmazonJohn Kerry now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military.

    Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan.

    This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad. And not just these divisions, but every officer and soldier who had a hand in drawing up the war plan...

    ...That the story was floated by a Bush foe in the U.N. bureaucracy at the IAEA did not discourage Kerry. Nor did the evident pretzel logic of condemning the war while bemoaning the huge danger of Saddam's arsenal. The facts on the myth of the missing munitions are available at The Belmont Club and Instapundit, but facts did not matter to Kerry at all, nor the reputations of the soldiers he charged with allowing massive amounts of deadly munitions to go missing...

    ...Bush has set up the campaign to be a referendum on his response to the attacks of September 11 and his conduct of the global war on terror. It is ending exactly where it should, as a vote of confidence on him and the military he leads.

    With five days left, Americans would do well to recall Winston Churchill's critique of Cordell Hull's fatigue in a late night planning session in the early stages of World War II. Hull began to excuse himself and head for bed, citing the lateness of the hour. Churchill bellowed his dismay: "Why, man, we are at war!"

    Indeed. Vote accordingly.


    Hugh Hewitt: Commander-in-Chief

    African-Americans abandoning Kerry



    Click here for AmazonAnything but strong turnout and overwhelming African-American support for Kerry could doom his chances. In 2000, record black turnout in Florida helped turn Florida into a virtual tie that took Republicans by surprise. This year, the mobilization effort is far greater, with a major focus on getting people to vote early.

    But for all the anecdotal evidence of heavy African-American turnout, there are hints that Kerry might not be doing as strongly as he needs to be. At a John Edwards rally in St. Petersburg on Saturday, white people held "African-Americans for Kerry-Edwards" placards.

    A St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll released Sunday showed Bush more than doubling his support from black voters since 2000, with 19 percent support...


    St. Petersburg Times: Clarion Call

    Link o' the Day



    Jeff Jacoby: John Kerry: Preacher-man

    Wednesday, October 27, 2004

    Some keepers: collection of Kerry "endorsements"



    Click here for AmazonJames Taranto has collected some... uhmmm... interesting Kerry endorsements (hat tip: PoliPundit):

    “I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government’s job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign’s constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man’s record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point–about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good."–Andrew Sullivan, endorsing John Kerry, The New Republic, Oct. 26

    “I can’t remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn’t have much use for Al Gore either, but I don’t remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name. . . . I can’t persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks."–Mark Brown, endorsing John Kerry, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 27

    “I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I’ve never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it’s clearly justified. Kerry’s major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."–Jacob Weisberg, endorsing John Kerry, Slate, Oct. 26


    And these are the Kerry endorsements. Wow.

    Kerry Endorsements